Integral World Forum - Post Message

Integral World Forum
« Post Message »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
May 18, 2013, 3:49am

Integral World Forum :: General :: General Board :: Post Message

Topic Summary

Posted by Anon on Nov 1, 2011, 4:20pm

The first sentence of my most recent comment here reads, "When you [Don] say that science precludes certain things (such as paranormal phenomena), I assume that you mean this literally, and I realize that I may be assuming incorrectly."

That's sloppy, and while I hope the context makes it apparent that I'm not suggesting that Don believes that science precludes paranormal phenomena, etc., in case it isn't I'll try to clarify my comment: Don says that some people seem to believe that science precludes paranormal phenomena, and I assume he means this literally, and realize that I may be assuming incorrectly.

Posted by Don Salmon on Nov 1, 2011, 4:42pm

Hi anon,

Did I ever say science precludes paranormal phenomena or anything like that?

Here's the main conclusion of the essay:

IT IS A MISTAKE TO CLAIM THAT MATERIALISTIC VIEWS ARE "PROVEN" BY SCIENCE.

Example: (from Degracia's essay; paraphrased) Love, or eros, cannot be the basis of evolution because love is entirely the result of material processes in the brain, and brains weren't around when evolution began.

Purpose of the essay: ultimately, as anon drew out my implications, to develop a science that is naturalistic but non materialistic.

But first, before we can do that, (IMHO) we need to be clear about what science does and does not tell us about matter and consciousness.

That's all.

What I find most fascinating is that materialists generally agree with the main premise and then a few moments later, are making statements contradicting the premise. This baffles me, and if you, anon, have any insight into this, i'd appreciate help understanding it.

thanks,
don

Posted by Don Salmon on Nov 1, 2011, 4:47pm

many apologies - I read your note too fast. Yes, that is one of the points, a minor one, but yes - Richard Wiseman, for example, states that the evidence for parapsychological phenomena is as good as that in any other branch of science (including physics, which appears to have a poorer replication rate than psi!), but he still doesn't believe in anomalous phenomena because "Extraordinary results require extraordinary evidence".

It's the "extraordinary" that I'm questioning - if he bases that on a personal philosophy, I have no problem with it (well, not quite "no problem" just that I'm not interested in his personal philosophy, since I doubt that a philosophy so contrary to scientific evidence has much to offer in the way of an integral science). If he bases that statement on scientific data and "laws" (which I assume he does) than as far as I understand scientific methodology, he's making a mistake.

Again, if we're ever going to develop a truly "integral" science, we need (I think) to be clear about what our current science does or does not tell us about consciousness.

Again, sorry - I just assumed you were disagreeing with me. Nice post!

don...

Posted by don salmon on Dec 12, 2011, 5:57pm

some other ways to think of a new approach to science are on the krishna prem thread

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free